COP out

December 9, 2015

I wish I could be optimistic about COP21, the climate negotiations coming to an end in Paris. I can’t. Even if the world’s countries keep their promises — known, in the mind-numbing argot of the UN as Intended Nationally Determined Commitments — the climate reductions they are promising don’t go far enough. As Coral Davenport reported in The Times as the talks got underway:

Together the more than 170 national plans for Paris would still allow the planet to warm by as much as 6 degrees, according to several independent and academic analyses. Scientists say that that level of warming is still likely to cause food shortages and widespread extinctions of plant and animal life.

These unenforceable “commitments” are, at best, a step in the right direction and, at worse, a way for government leaders to try to fool their citizens and, perhaps, themselves into thinking they are doing the right thing.

One reason for my skepticism is that these voluntary efforts resemble the voluntary measures taken by companies to curb their carbon emissions for the past decade or so. Even the most mainstream and business-friendly green groups are discouraged by the scale of those efforts, so they have launched an initiative called Science Based Targets to try to persuade big companies to do better.

In a story headlined Where’s the Science?, I wrote big companies and their climate targets the other day in Guardian Sustainable Business. Here’s how the story begins:

As the UN climate meetings in Paris come to an end this week, diplomats from around the world are under pressure to reach an agreement that would reflect the plans they presented to cut their countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. These voluntary plans include targets and starting points set by each government. The US vows to cut emissions by 26% below 2005 levels by 2025; the EU by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030; and China will starting reducing in 2030.

It hasn’t worked. Emissions from the world’s 500 largest businesses are rising,according to Thomson Reuters. Scientists say emissions must fall to avoid catastrophic climate risks.

Science Based Targets intends to push companies to do better. It’s an initiative formed by the World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, the CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) and the UN Global Compact – business-friendly, mainstream organizations that are frustrated by the arbitrary and unscientific nature of corporate climate targets.

Voluntary carbon targets–for companies or countries–are not likely to get us where we need to go, I’m afraid. They make about as much sense as voluntary speed limits or tax rates.

Comments

Until the big companies can find a way to pass the cost of climate change to the public, unfortunately I don’t think we will see a big change. The general public can only afford so much. My sister lives in WV. She has seen coal plant after coal plant close. With each closing her electricity bill climbs higher and higher. I was surprised to know that only in the last 5 years, her bill (for the same house) has risen from $75 a month to nearly $280 a month.

I think , if the global/ruling elite would even put a little of their profits toward climate change I think we would see faster change.

Disclaimer: Just my humble opinion; I have not researched this topic hardcore.

Dear Milissa,
With respect (and a little off topic, sorry Mark), there may be something wrong at your mother’s house or with her bill. And at those costs, it’s worth investigating. State-wide the priced of residential electricity in West Virginia has declined since 2011 from from 9.39 to 9.34 per kWh. You can see the data here:http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser
If her bill has really gone up that much, it may be that something at her home (a furnace, a well-pump, etc) is malfunctioning and consuming way more energy than it should. Worth looking into.
Cheers!

My friend Aron Cramer of BSR (Business for Social Responsibility) took issue with this post. In an email to me, Aron writes:

Having gotten home from COP yesterday, I have to say that this is a rare time when I disagree with you. The challenges you raise are very real. The quiet opposition of the Chinese, Indians, and Saudis is a problem. The call for keeping warming to 1.5 degrees seems to me to be unrealistic.

But…there is little doubt that things are changing. It would be fantasy to assume that this agreement will solve things. But it undeniably represents a very, very important step forward, and combined with changing economics, local political pressure to act, and technological progress, it is entirely fair and accurate to say that COP21 could represent a genuine turning point.

There is undeniably an immense amount that needs to happen, some of it relatively likely, some of it really hard.

But overall, COPtimism is more legitimate than at any other point since they got started…